DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The objection to the title has been withdrawn considering the amendment to the title to be more descriptive.
The interpretation of “interference unit” under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is maintained as Applicant’s remarks has not pointed out any reason why the interpretation is in error.
On page 9, Applicant argues none of the references teach generating defined interference in the optical path and that the references disclose “passive incidental optical effects that are inherent.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not pointed out how the claim avoids a “passive” optical effect.
Applicant argues Horoika’s use of the light shielding plate and spherical surface are part of the normal optical configuration and are always present. It is not clear to the Examiner how this pertains to the claim. The Examiner does not see any language in the claim that precludes normal operation or an always present light shielding plate. In response to Applicant’s assertion that Horioka is not “based on a response of light to interference,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The light reflected off the light shielding plate is detected due to scattering from sample water.
Regarding Cho, Applicant argues the reflector is a fixed feature and thus there is no intentional generation of interference. In response, the Examiner is not persuaded. The reflector is intentionally there and therefore there is intentional interference of the light. Furthermore, the claim does not require recognition by the prior art that there is intentional interference of the light.
Regarding Coogan, Applicant argues interference is a part of normal optical behavior and is not intentional. In response, the Examiner is not persuaded as nothing is found in the claim that requires Coogan to “intentionally” create interference, nor state a recognition of “interference.”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
interference unit in claims 8, 10, 12-19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In the last clause of claim 1, the “the light scattered” is not clear if it is referring to the “light scattered” of the second clause or the “light now scattered” of the fourth clause, or both. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted to be both.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horioka (JP 2019184511).
Horioka shows the measurement of turbidity as follows:
1. A method for determining a scattered light parameter in a medium using a measuring arrangement (turbidimeter 100), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
580
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
transmitting excitation light (light source LED 61) into the medium, wherein the excitation light is scattered in the medium;
receiving the light scattered in the medium, which defines an optical path of excitation light and scattered light ("The light that has entered the cylindrical body 20 is scattered by the particles 70 in the sample water…and travels toward the transmitted light receiver 62"; See the scattered light receiver 63);
generating interference in the optical path ("The surface of the spherical surface 17 is coated with, for example, white so that light is reflected"; "The surface of the light shielding plate 50 is a reflective surface that reflects light"; "the light shielding plate 50 is a flat plate member having the same diameter as or slightly larger than the outer diameter of the cylindrical body 20, so that light from the cylindrical body 20 does not directly enter the port 15 of the integrating sphere 10.");
receiving (scattered light receiver 63) the light now scattered in the medium, the light now scattered in the medium being influenced by the interference ("The surface of the spherical surface 17 is coated with, for example, white so that light is reflected"; "The surface of the light shielding plate 50 is a reflective surface that reflects light." The light from reflector scatters and mixes with the scattered light that is not reflected); and
determining the scattered light parameter ("The measurement unit calculates the turbidity") based on the light scattered in the medium and a response of the light scattered in the medium to the interference (“detecting the intensity of scattered light”).
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the interference is a reflection, a scattering, or another optical interaction ("The surface of the spherical surface 17 is coated with, for example, white so that light is reflected"; "The surface of the light shielding plate 50 is a reflective surface that reflects light"; "the light shielding plate 50 is a flat plate member having the same diameter as or slightly larger than the outer diameter of the cylindrical body 20, so that light from the cylindrical body 20 does not directly enter the port 15 of the integrating sphere 10.").
5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the interference is configured as electro-optical interference, and wherein interference light (light which is produced by the electro-optical light source 61 is reflected from either the light shielding plate 50 or from spherical surface 17) is received in addition to the scattered light (other scattered light, e.g. scattered light that scatter directly to light receiver 63).
8. A measuring arrangement for performing the method according to claim 1, the measuring arrangement comprising:
at least one light source configured to transmit excitation light into the medium and in a direction of a surface of the medium (light source LED 61);
at least one photodiode configured to receive the light scattered in the medium and to convert the light scattered in the medium into an electrical signal, thereby defining an optical path from the at least one light source, through the medium, and to the at least one photodiode (transmitted light receiver 62 ");
an interference unit configured to generate interference in the optical path ("The surface of the light shielding plate 50 is a reflective surface that reflects light"; "the light shielding plate 50 is a flat plate member having the same diameter as or slightly larger than the outer diameter of the cylindrical body 20, so that light from the cylindrical body 20 does not directly enter the port 15 of the integrating sphere 10."); and
a data processing unit configured to determine the scattered light parameter from the electrical signal based on the light scattered in the medium, taking into account the influence of the interference ("The measurement unit calculates the turbidity ").
9. The measuring arrangement according to claim 8, wherein the at least one light source is configured to transmit the excitation light into the medium via a first optical window (Abstract: "LED 61 arranged on the side of one transparent plate 22 LED 61 arranged on the side of one transparent plate 22"), wherein the at least one photodiode receives the light scattered in the medium via the first optical window or a second optical window, wherein the interference unit is a reflective and/or scattering interference element ("The surface of the light shielding plate 50 is a reflective surface that reflects light"), wherein the interference element generates the interference when positioned in front of the first optical window and in the optical path (see Figs. 1 and 2).
14. The measuring arrangement according to claim 8, wherein the interference unit is a scattering or reflection unit ("The surface of the light shielding plate 50 is a reflective surface that reflects light"), and the measuring arrangement is positioned relative to the scattering or reflection unit such that a permanent measured value offset results at least for a medium that is slightly or not at all turbid (this limitation does not serve to limit structure but rather recites desired results and thus does not differentiate from Horioka).
16. The method according to claim 1, wherein the measuring arrangement includes a turbidity sensor and the scattered light parameter is turbidity (turbidimeter 100).
17. The method according to claim 3, wherein the interference element is an element that reflects and/or scatters the excitation light into the optical path ("The surface of the light shielding plate 50 is a reflective surface that reflects light") .
19. The measuring arrangement according to claim 8, wherein the measurement arrangement includes a turbidity sensor and the scattered light parameter is turbidity (turbidimeter 100).
Claim(s) 1, 8-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (WO 2024/090647; See IDS of 11/26/2024 and attached machine translation).
Cho shows the measurement of turbidity as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
440
396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
1. A method for determining a scattered light parameter in a medium using a measuring arrangement, the method comprising:
transmitting excitation light into the medium (see discussion of Fig. 1: "a first light source that emits light to the fluid inside the fluid storage part first light source that emits light to the fluid inside the fluid storage part"), wherein the excitation light is scattered in the medium;
receiving the light scattered in the medium, which defines an optical path of excitation light and scattered light (discussion of Fig. 1: "a first light receiving part that receives scattered light scattered by suspended particles in the fluid");
generating interference in the optical path (discussion of Fig. 1: "the reflector may be positioned between a first surface facing the first light source and a second surface facing the first light receiving part.");
receiving the light now scattered in the medium, the light now scattered in the medium being influenced by the interference (discussion of Fig. 1: "a first light receiving part that receives scattered light scattered by suspended particles in the fluid" The light from reflector scatters and mixes with the scattered light that is not reflected); and
determining the scattered light parameter (classification or turbidity value) based on the light scattered in the medium, including influence of the interference (“It is possible to classify and measure the high turbidity value” discussion of Fig. 1: "control unit 500 that measures the turbidity of the fluid 110 ") and a response (intensity at the light receiving unit, or turbidity or classification) of the light scattered in the medium to the interference.
8. A measuring arrangement for performing the method according to claim 1, the measuring arrangement comprising:
at least one light source configured to transmit excitation light into the medium and in a direction of a surface of the medium (first light source 310);
at least one photodiode configured to receive the light scattered in the medium and to convert the light scattered in the medium into an electrical signal, thereby defining an optical path from the at least one light source, through the medium, and to the at least one photodiode ("a light receiving unit 400 that receives scattered light scattered by the suspended particles 120 of the fluid 110, a first light source 310, and a second light");
an interference unit configured to generate interference in the optical path (reflector 200; the second light source 320); and
a data processing unit configured to determine the scattered light parameter from the electrical signal based on the light scattered in the medium, taking into account the influence of the interference ("control unit 500 that measures the turbidity of the fluid 110 ").
9. The measuring arrangement according to claim 8, wherein the at least one light source (first light source 310) is configured to transmit the excitation light into the medium via a first optical window ("entire surface of the fluid storage unit 100 may be formed of a light-transmitting member"; see windows in Figs. 4 and 5),
wherein the at least one photodiode (light receiving unit 400, 410, 420) receives the light scattered in the medium via the first optical window or a second optical window,
wherein the interference unit is a reflective and/or scattering interference element (reflector 200),
wherein the interference element (reflector 200) generates the interference when positioned in front of the first optical window and in the optical path (see Figs. 1 and 2).
10. The measuring arrangement according to claim 9, wherein the interference unit is arranged outside the medium (See Figs. 2-4 and 8).
13. The measuring arrangement according to claim 8, wherein the interference unit is configured as an interference light source, which transmits interference light in a direction of the at least one photodiode such that the interference is generated (second light source 320).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coogan (WO 82/03460).
Coogan shows a liquid turbidity measuring system/method as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
420
406
media_image3.png
Greyscale
1. A method for determining a scattered light parameter in a medium using a measuring arrangement, the method comprising:
transmitting excitation light (p. 7, lines 21-24: "Light is applied to fibre bundle 14 by electrically actuable means comprising a light emitting device such as a light-emitting diode (LED) 16") into the medium (liquid 8), wherein the excitation light is scattered in the medium;
receiving the light scattered in the medium, which defines an optical path of excitation light and scattered light (p. 8, lines 4-6: "Light returned along fibre bundle 15 is monitored 5 by photodetector means including, for example a photodiode 20");
generating interference in the optical path (Coonan does not explicitly state there is interference; however, it would be inherent that light would reflect from the bottom of the container and then return to the fiber bundle 10; p. 13, lines 25-29: "Light striking the second surface of the glass plate, which is the liquid/wafer interface, is reflected so that some enters the detector fibres");
receiving the light now scattered in the medium, the light now scattered in the medium being influenced by the interference (the reflected light that returns to fiber bundle 12; The light from reflector scatters and mixes with the scattered light that is not reflected); and
determining the scattered light parameter based on the light scattered in the medium, including influence of the interference (p. 8, lines 21-31: "the reading on meter 26 can be rendered indicative of particular parameters of interest at the pole tip") and a response ("the reading on meter 26) of the light scattered in the medium to the interference.
Regarding claim 8, please see the elements cited above that correspond by their functions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 7, 11, 15, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horioka as applied to claims 1 or 8 above, and further in view of Smeeton et al. (US 2016/0054281).
Horioka shows all the steps and elements as discussed for claims 1 and 8 above but do not show a moving interference element as recited in claims
Smeeton shows an optical sensor for fluid analysis having a window-cleaning means such as a wiper that is periodically moved across the surface of the window (e.g. para. [0237]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to add a window cleaning means such as a wiper to the windows (transparent plates 22, 23, cylindrical body 20, 21) of Horioka.
As to claim 3, the periodically moving wiper is a moving interference element.
As to claim 6, the periodically moving wiper would produce the interference temporarily and regularly since it is periodically moving.
As to claims 7, 11, and 15, Smeeton teaches the window cleaning means may "include a nozzle supplied with a compressed fluid. The fluid may be air. Alternatively the fluid may be water." Although Smeeton does not explicitly state that the water is ultrapure, it would be 3common sense to use the cleanest water possible for cleaning purposes.
As to claim 18, the wiper moving across the surface of the window would be moved to toward a reflective element, e.g. the reflective mirror 22 (para. [0224]: " the mirror 22 reflects some of the light with the second central wavelength") or adjacent portion of spherical surface 17 which is reflective.
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coogan as applied to claims 1 or 8 above, and further in view of Official notice.
Coonan shows all the steps and elements as discussed for claims 1 and 8 above but do not show a moving interference unit to move the measuring arrangement as recited in claims 4 and 12.
It is inherent that optical instrument 9 is moved relative to the liquid container, either manually or automatically. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use automated mechanical system (e.g. robotic arm; Official notice is taken that robotic arms were well known for moving objects).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a mechanical system to automatically move the optical instrument 9 into the liquid 8 so that the instrument can measure the turbidity of the liquid, thereby saving manual labor.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
